Similar offering to Intel's stick computer (albeit Intel's has better specs and costs 50% more): http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/compute-stick/intel-c...
Actually, according to CNET, there's a Linux version of the Intel stick that costs only $89, plus, Intel's has a micro SD card slot, although it lacks the 802.11ac. http://www.cnet.com/products/intel-compute-stick/
Unfortunately, the Linux edition only has 1GB of RAM and 16GB of storage, while the Windows version will have 2GB and 32GB respectively.
For this workflow (where you already have most of a computer at two locations), wouldn't having a diskless workstation at work and home also work out, and just carry around a USB thumbdrive? That way you still have the same environment in both locations.
I've actually considered USB before in years past and discounted it because the speed of USB sticks was very bad (in the context of keeping all your files on one, compiling from one, etc). Thinking about it again in light of your comment made me realize there very well could be USB 3.0 thumbdrives with suitable speed (based on some Googling around it looks like there are some that are quite fast, but you have to be r…
The fastest USB 3.0 drive I have is an msata card I had left over after I upgraded, which is mounted in an msata SSD to usb converter case. I haven't tried running my normal OS environment off it yet, but overall performance is way better than a typical USB stick, or USB hard drives.
I think this product will do well especially for students, start-up businesses, or even for leisure use. Google's goal is to be able to address the affordability and at the same time not sacrificing quality. It definitely isn't the best machine out there but it is sufficient for daily use of middle-income consumers and students. On their video ad, it's obvious that they are also focusing on an international market wh…
> Google's goal is to be able to address the affordability and at the same time not sacrificing quality. Google's goal is to sell its cloud services, not the hardware here. The specs are crappy and that laptop is basically useless if you are doing anything else than internet. Sure it cost 150$, but that's an expensive surfing machine. And Google is off course selling internet services... > I think this product will d…
Just because you can replace an OS does not mean it's open. It's about the ecosystem too. How much percentage of Chromebooks could be running Crouton or Linux? I wager less than 2%.
You're wrong. 100% of Chromebooks are running Linux. If you don't want to use Crouton you can bootstrap Linuxbrew and have access to pretty much any program you'd have on any other Linux distribution.
> "Maybe they're not the present, but they ARE the future." That reminds me of Sun in the early 90's. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I don't think it's inevitable you're right either. Especially since browser UI toolkits are still stuck in the stone age compared to native counterparts. Until that gets fixed, I actually think it's probably just wishful thinking.
There are orders of magnitude more UI kits for HTML/CSS then there are for native.
Is that because HTML/CSS UIs are more robust and advanced than native UI frameworks? Or because native UI framekits solved all the problems that the vast cornucopia of HTML/CSS UI frameworks are still struggling to solve? Or because everybody looks at all the HTML/CSS frameworks, decides none of them solve their problem, and decides to write their own?
$149 is ridiculously cheap and I don't think Microsoft wants, or should want to operate in that market. At the $200-$300 price range there are many Windows choices - most with significantly better hardware and features. Microsoft: Leave the sub $200 market to others and leverage your online services to sell to those consumers.
I agree. Microsoft should ignore this because there's no money in it. Still, it's nice that a couple billion new people will be able to afford their first computer.
It's sad to see folks celebrating computing devices that are more extremely locked down than even the iDevices. A Windows PC/laptop is much more open than a Chromebook. Can Mozilla even make a Firefox browser for ChromeOS? Only Google can make system and native apps, unlike the iDevices where you can access most of the native functionality even if you have to go through Apple's approval and you're not forced to uploa…
Actually, I upvoted this, but on reflection I think this is wrong. Here's why: - Most Chromebooks are freely bootloader unlocked, allowing any operating system to be loaded on them. - ChromeOS follows the same open source model as Chrome—Most core features open, with things like Flash/Wildvine/API keys held secret. - There are no native apps on ChromeOS—the correct question is not "Can Mozilla write a browser for Chr…
> There are no native apps on ChromeOS
This is not correct, you can run native apps for Chrome OS via Native Client (NaCL) or App Runtime for Chrome (ARC).
VLC, a poster child for native apps, will be released for Chrome OS in a few months using ARC.
>And a lot of people love them—Chromebooks were the best selling laptops on Amazon last holiday season, and teachers and students made them the #1 device in schools last year.
What does this even mean? Does it mean on Amazon all Chromebooks combined sold more than any other laptop categories, Windows or MacBook?
> "Maybe they're not the present, but they ARE the future." That reminds me of Sun in the early 90's. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I don't think it's inevitable you're right either. Especially since browser UI toolkits are still stuck in the stone age compared to native counterparts. Until that gets fixed, I actually think it's probably just wishful thinking.
There are orders of magnitude more UI kits for HTML/CSS then there are for native.
> "Maybe they're not the present, but they ARE the future." That reminds me of Sun in the early 90's. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I don't think it's inevitable you're right either. Especially since browser UI toolkits are still stuck in the stone age compared to native counterparts. Until that gets fixed, I actually think it's probably just wishful thinking.
How ubiquitous is Java? Containers, VMs, etc..., ARE all the rage. Sun was correct as to what technology belongs to the future, they just couldn't position their company properly. Odds are we're all using technology that's part of Sun's legacy...
That wasn't the vision that I recall. Maybe part of some of it, but I'm talking about the Internet Terminal idea.
A lot of cool things came out of Sun. I don't think this was one. Have you tried Web IDEs? They're probably decades behind their desktop counterparts.